HFQ Delayed to Tuesday, October 13, 2015 - Ref: Amazon

Charybdis wrote:At this moment, I cannot parse RTH although as soon as some good soul enlightens me I'm sure I will do the classic 'head slap!'

Road to Hell, the next volume of the Sharona/Arcana series that began with Hell's Gate and continued with Hell Hath No Fury.

Charybdis wrote:

runsforcelery wrote:... She was not my regular copy editor and she and I did not (to say the least) see eye-to-eye. (Among other things, when I had Merlin reflect that, unlike Hitler in the USSR, the Church had an ideology which would generate substantial support for an occupation even in Siddarmark, she informed that that Hitler did have an ideology "it was called [you may be as amazed as I to learn] National Socialism." She also informed that neither ships nor countries were female and it was therefore incorrect to refer to them with female gender pronouns. ...

OMG!!

Sounds like a grad from a really prestigious college with a degree in Wymn Genderism that required minimal encounters with actual history (vs herstory)! I guess that terms like 'Motherland' meant nothing and she never encountered any sea-faring ship references in her education(?) either!

Thank you for the explanation and from this evidence I think that we can more fully appreciate what goes on behind those curtains!

Sounds to me like an overly sensitive feminist being hung up with inclusive language.

Don

=2015/05/05=

WOW !!

I've never been a sailor or in the armed forces, but even I knew ships were female !!

R
.

kbus888 wrote:

I've never been a sailor or in the armed forces, but even I knew ships were female !!

Yeah. Furthermore, I think the fatherland was a (honorary) male, but most of the others were female.

~Tonto

Tonto Silerheels wrote:kbus888 wrote:

I've never been a sailor or in the armed forces, but even I knew ships were female !!

Yeah. Furthermore, I think the fatherland was a (honorary) male, but most of the others were female.

~Tonto

I think some traditions have ships being male, but still, they're mostly referred to with the feminine. And countries are usually the "Mother country".

How does anyone who reads (or watches) anything - be it fiction or nonfiction - with ships featured in a meaningful way manage to not know that ships are referred to with the feminine?

Kytheros wrote:

Tonto Silerheels wrote:kbus888 wrote:

I've never been a sailor or in the armed forces, but even I knew ships were female !!

Yeah. Furthermore, I think the fatherland was a (honorary) male, but most of the others were female.

~Tonto

I think some traditions have ships being male, but still, they're mostly referred to with the feminine. And countries are usually the "Mother country".

How does anyone who reads (or watches) anything - be it fiction or nonfiction - with ships featured in a meaningful way manage to not know that ships are referred to with the feminine?

She could be Russian. As I recall the Russian tradition is that ships are males. Tom Kratman refers to this in Yellow Eyes....he also suggested through Daisy-May (USS Iowa) that those Russian ships were gay.

PeterZ wrote:
She could be Russian. As I recall the Russian tradition is that ships are males. Tom Kratman refers to this in Yellow Eyes....he also suggested through Daisy-May (USS Iowa) that those Russian ships were gay.

Or she could be from a Spanish background. There are actually two words for "ship" in Spanish, one male (barco, used exclusively for seagoing ships) and one female (nave, used for any ship, i.e. airships, seaships and spaceships), and she could be just defaulting to her preferred form.

runsforcelery wrote:

Randomiser wrote:Could RFC or someone with inside knowledge please clarify what is going on? Do TOR intend to hold up the E-book for 5 weeks after the hardcover or is this just sloppy web-editing on Amazon's part?

I can't speak to the reason for the shift to the October date, although I suspect the Sword of the South/Road to Hell conflict may indeed be the answer. As to why the book was delayed until 2015, though, as I believe I've said before, that was largely my fault.

<SNIP>

Anyway, that's more or less what I think is going on here, and I sort of wish people wouldn't hammer TOR too hard over the head for decisions which actually make a lot of sense looking at the production (and marketing) situation from the inside.

Back after an intensive bout of RL - the scourge of the reading classes. Thanks for the info.

Nope I didn't spot that. They were a month apart, but I could see how the marketing department could get antsy about that. The delay to 2015 you had explained before and we had all got used to.

Good Grief! (as Charlie Brown might have said) Your copy-editing experience on MTaT sounds horrendous. How on earth does anyone with such a poor grasp of sentence structure (Hitler example) and English usage (pronouns) get a job with a major publisher as a copy-editor for English language publications? Fully understandable that you would rather chew your own leg off than go through that again.




]

Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ...

Publication Dates from The Book Depository:

The Sword of the South - 4 August 2015
Hell's Foundations Quiver - 8 September 2015

Bewildered wrote:Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons ...

Publication Dates from The Book Depository:

The Sword of the South - 4 August 2015
Hell's Foundations Quiver - 8 September 2015

A few weeks ago that was accurate. But TOR has slipped the date to October 13 for HFQ. Baen has already pubished the eARC for SOtS and the August date is still correct.